Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviewed AE911Truth's Richard Gage, AIA, Barrie Zwicker (Towers of Deception), Author Paul Zarembka on the program "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin.

The Agenda with Steve Paikin

The National Post's Jonathan Kay, author of the hit piece "Among the Truthers," is interviewed alone for the first 15 minutes, then the debate begins. The satellite link connection with Gage in San Francisco is lost half way through the guest interviews.

He is there to ask Kay why he does not address the evidence which shows the present official explanations for the building collapses of Sept. 11, 2001 to be false, and instead simply tries to denigrate anyone who believes that evidence is problematic.

Shame on Jonathan Kay for not addressing the evidence and putting out a book which diverts from the real issues. His behavior seems even worse when you find out he has Bachelors and Masters degrees in Metallurgical Engineering and a Law degree from Yale. Could it be he is an agent/propagandist? They do like Yale grads and his behavior follows the 1967 memo put out instructing agents on how to discredit critics of the bogus Warren Commission story on the Kennedy assassination, which was later amended in 1979 by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Assassinations to admit "it was probably a conspiracy". See the memo here http://www.takeoverworld.info/cia_propaganda_assets_namebase.html

Kay said his book was pre-emptive to keep people who haven't yet from joining the movement calling for a new investigation, since he claims that conspiracy theories are detrimental to society. Geez, isn't it easier to have a new investigation when evidence showing it is needed is presented? It is unless there is something to hide. Hence, since they can't address the evidence, those trying to keep things hidden have to resort to defaming critics of provably false reports by trying to paint them as a fringe crazed element, to dissuade others who may be susceptible to ridicule from joining them. Kay's behavior here is disgraceful, especially in light of the engineering education he has.

as he has no intention of discussing the facts of the case and their merits one way or another, and he blatantly intends to defame anyone who publicly brings up problems with the present official story of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 as a conspiracy theorist without a basis.

You provide no basis for your assertion that you think he is just a writer without an agenda.

A legitimate writer would take a fair look at all sides of the issue and let the chips fall where they may. In spite of any perfunctory comments that he has, in reality he hasn't and he won't. He will not debate the NIST reports and simply cites them and Zdenek Bazant's work as beyond reproach, while writing smears on those who are critical of these reports and Bazant's papers. He lies about critics of the NIST reports only getting their information by watching You Tube videos. He also tries to lump anyone questioning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in with the likes of David Icke, Birthers, and others who promote nonsensical things in an obvious attempt to smear and discredit by association.

Kay is a metalurgical engineer in addition to having a law degree, so he could discuss the scientific issues and legalities concerning what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 and its aftermath if he chose to do so. He won't because it would conflict with his agenda, which is to prevent those who aren't sure about what is going on from becoming suspicious. Jonathan Kay wants to tell everyone there is nothing to see here and that it is only crazies bringing up things which he alleges to have already been explained as being benign. In short, he is a highly educated and conniving liar.

Kay is a member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_fddbios&Itemid=326 which has such democratic minded luminaries as Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Joe Lieberman on their roster. I would hope you know that Gingrich was involved in the planning for the Iraq war, although he was not an elected or appointed official at the time. That is outrageous and points to a behind the scenes control that the electorate is not privy to, but Jonathan Kay would say you are just a conspiracy theorist if you imply that sinister motives could be being acted on.

It is truly sad that someone like Jonathan Kay has a platform to speak to a large audience without the opposing point of view being given equal time, with the TVO show and some others thankfully being a few exceptions.

It brings great joy to me to observe how nervous Kay looks at the start of the interview. Like a schoolboy caught doing something he shouldn't. :)

I think it might be useful to distinguish between two kinds of people: those who don't want to get involved and those who actively work against 911 truth. For example, Kay and Chomsky would belong to the second category while Fisk and Pilger to the first.

Kay's is clearly out to promote and legitimize the idea that facts and evidence supporting 911 conspiracy theories are irrelevant, that there is no need to engage in a serious discussion here. He is teaching people that when you discuss conspiracies "the correct way" you should only talk about the sociology of conspiracy theorists and not the hard facts and evidence. Kay is promoting the mode of thought that there is somehow a different way to ascertain the truth of a subject matter other than to calmly deal directly with the related evidence and facts. I think there is only one way of countering that: you have to call it for what it is: pseudo-intellectual. No intellectual person should sink to that level.

and listening to him I am wondering whether or not Kay may actually believe what he is saying.

However, his attitude is certainly condescending and it does not appear that he has looked into the scientific realities in sufficient detail to decide what is really happening, and he refuses to debate the science, as he says you can never win a debate with a conspiracy theorist as they always have more information.

Given the above this guy had no business writing a book saying people who think the towers and Building 7 were controlled demolitions are goofy and his book is in fact pablum for those who want to comfort themselves without looking into the matter in detail. That is what makes me wonder if he does have an agenda.

Clearly has an agenda, but I followed his emergence on the scene closely since the beginning and I remember distinctly the incredibly hostile reception he got from truthers, because they suspected he wasn't genuinely interested in them, just that he wanted to write hit pieces. They were right, of course. Nevertheless, I think this hostility must have played a role in shaping the thinly veiled disdain and contempt he displays in his book. The book is his get-back.

I didn't know about his membership of the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies", if you watch the line-up there... that's pretty awful.

I'm no fan of Barry Zwicker (anymore) and Zarembka doesn't strike me as credible with his no hijacker claims either. But Kay's slippery sucking up and apologetic back pedaling strikes me as cowardly. He wrote a book attempting to destroy the truth movement with the sort of dodgy, vituperative polemic known to be used by yellow journalist hacks, so he should just own up to it, and not stoop to cowering during a confrontation with his targets after publication.

towards him, then it seems strange that he talks about being treated kindly in people's homes when he interviewed them, being served coffee and the like. I learned this by listening to some of his interviews with radio shows in the last few days.

If he is retaliating in some way, it is extremely irresponsible on his part, as this is a very serious issue with murder involved and there is very real evidence of foul play.

I felt I should at least try to educate him and last night e-mailed him links to my presentation on WTC 7 and the interview from the AE911Truth experts speak out documentary, while telling him that although conspiracy theories like the birther issue, chemtrails, HAARP etc. can be dismissed, as there is no real evidence for them, that there have been very real conspiracies in history and one should not dismiss the entire notion. I used the La Cosa Nostra (mafia) as an example.

I have a feeling that Jonathan Kay has made up his mind, without really looking at the scientific evidence, and has gone off half-cocked dismissing any potential for a conspiratorially committed crime and cover-up here. He is going to have to live with that and God will be his judge if nothing happens in this lifetime.

The reality that high level conspiracies exist really goes without saying and the fact that we are incessantly told it is nuts to believe they do is quite annoying and disconcerting. I also can't believe everyone is in on it and that people like those in Congress don't get it once exposed to the evidence for it, as it really is blatant when you see WTC 7's collapse and think about all of the implications there.

I am wondering if many Congress members and even people like Kay may privately rationalize to themselves that the cure in this case, of bringing leaders to trial and the official revelation of a Machiavellian ruse occurring, where they were willing to sacrifice their own people, might be worse than the injury.

As a result we are being forced to live with the Big Lie, and allow those who committed the atrocity to go free and deal with the constant upset of having to stomach those who are willing to go along to get along.

I remember quite clearly during the early part of the Iran-Contra "scandal" (massive crimes both foreign and domestic, btw) that many people were saying that the country could not survive another impeachment.

Does cancer ever cure itself?

I have gone back to not standing up during the national anthem, as I did during the 1980's, because I am not going to "honor" a government as corrupt as ours. I always enjoy it when people ask me why I'm not standing and they open the door for an overview of 9/11 truth.

These days there is also a lot of talk of "critical thinking" as it were something easy. But critical thinking is actually very hard and requires a lot of effort and patience. I also think that being rational and a facts-driven person, through and through, actually requires a deliberate conscious decision. In many cases it is rather inconvenient to accept the primacy of facts and reason. For sure, being a 911 "truther" takes intellectual integrity and mental strength. And few people are up for it.

For most people the unconscious decision is to go for what is socially convenient opinion while facts and reason are relegated to the "back seat" so to speak. This is also the case for professional scientists. They are already in an environment in which it is socially correct to let irrational factors give way for facts and reason. That is not to say that irrational factors still play some role, but in such an environment there is no need for a firm resolve to stick with facts and reason. That a professional scientist might not stick to facts and reason in other circumstances, e.g. 911, is then perhaps not too surprising. He never took that conscious decision.

In the case of Kay it is abundantly clear that he is not a facts-driven person regarding 911 (although he might very well be so on other topics!). And what is interesting from listening to interviews with him, he also provide long-winded justifications and arguments for why one should not be interested in facts when it comes to "conspiracy theories".

But this does not explain why he is on the offence here. Most people would simply not touch the issue and leave it at that. So I find it puzzling when people such as Kay, Chomsky, Shalom, Albert, Shermer, Cockburn, etc.. deliberately enter this debate and do so with mostly pseudo-intellectual and sometime circular arguments which are devoid of relevant facts. Nafeez Ahmed has a good article on this

and I have listened to a few of his recent radio interviews like you, to try to get a bead on where this character is actually coming from.

I am glad to hear your physicist friend took the time to look at what I presented at the University of Hartford concerning WTC 7. When presented with the reality and science it should be clear to any honest and rational person that the NIST report on WTC 7 is non-explanatory and essentially impossible, and they have to realize that the only real explanation is that the building was intentionally demolished, with an additional epiphany being that there had to be pre-positioned demolition devices in the building, as it could not be rigged on that day given its size and the situation.

Richard Perle, for example, is part of the "Foundation For The Defence Of Democracies" with which Jonathan Kay is associated.

Others at the Foundation Kay is linked with include many pro-Iraq warwongers like Charles Krauthammer, Micheal Ledeen, Bill Kristol, Joseph Lieberman, etc.

You have to wonder why Kay, an intelligent man with a busy day job and associated work with this Foundation - would want to spend his time writing books about marginal kooks - you know, 'truthers', 'nutters' and the like?

Surely he's got better things to do with his time?

Or is he worried the 'kooks' are on to something - so he's smearing legitimate research by conflating it with 'armageddonites' and 'Hollywood hysterics'?

Barry is no more or less perfect than the rest of us, and may not have every detail correct, but he is absolutely right in the overall sense that the present official stories concerning what happened to those three buildings on Sept. 11, 2001 are false, that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda cannot possibly be the only ones involved if they were involved at all, and that a real investigation is needed.

...terminated his already precarious position as a credible representative of this movement.

I honestly don't care if he thinks the official story regarding the building collapses is false. He also supports the absurd idea that a plane flew over the Pentagon and Lloyde England is an accomplice in mass murder. Oh, and lest we forget - if you're critical of that position you're a 'disinformation agent'. Ridiculous. Zwicker has no credibility.

Exhibit A
"Zwicker: Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon."http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

You both nailed it regarding BZ. Personally, I think BZ is more of a whiner than a crank. More than what he's doing, what BZ is not doing is following suit with the likes of Jones, Ryan, Gage, McGovern, McKinney, MacQueen, et. al. in laying bare the problems and (in the words of Jon Gold) letting the facts speak for themselves. BZ is truly a "conspiracy theorist."

As someone who likes to always find the silver lining, I'm encouraged that some have risked calling out rabid bullshit for what it is. The cleansing serves us well. The problems with BZ are not exclusive to 911TRUTH. All movements need to be cautious of personalities who hog the spotlight, especially those who, in so doing, simultaneously "call out" others as (in this case) being disinfo specialists.

Five years ago, BZ was noteworthy. Had he evolved with others to recognize the need for measured proclamations based on fact, there wouldn't be an issue, here. But he didn't and won't. What does that say? It says he's either not paying attention to the evolution of the movement, or he's got an agenda of his own, or he's a "paranoid fruitcake." I've seen too many problems with BZ to trust him wholeheartedly. Thank god we're now bigger than he is. If he ever realizes that, and he is truly sincere, a sense of humility will take center stage and all will be obvious. Until then, people have justification to be suspect.

This is a difficult interview to watch as our proponents for a new investigation fall into the trap set by the ad hominem attacks.

Kay's analysis of the three 'cranks' would be a well thought out description of a fascinating social phenomena were it not for the facts at hand. Like an investigator at a murder scene hell-bent on discrediting any witness that the man with the smoking gun in hand might have something to do with the crime, is his error.

Barry Z lost it big time. Who cares about personal feelings? Stop allowing Kay to frame the argument and redirect the question to the fact that if the raw data can not be agreed upon, what point is there in talking about why one's conclusions are so improbable or why middle aged men seek mental puzzles outside the realm of their profession!?!?!

I share your frustration. Why didn't Zwicker just let Kay's insults fall off his back, and more importantly, let Kay's silence on the mountain of forensic evidence speak for itself. Like so:

Kay: Well, when I said "crank" I meant it affectionately. A lot of famous, successful politicians were cranks.

BZ: So what? How do you explain the highly engineered thermitic material in the WTC dust?

Kay: uhhh... It seems old men like to study things that have nothing to do with their profession because they lose their sexual appetite.

BZ: So what? How is a psycho-social study of a group of people relevant to scientific evidence confirming explosive materials in the tower remains?

Yea, that was frustrating as fuck. At least these guys had a fairly reasoned debate. Gage being cut off didn't really detract much as he seemed to just want to present information, which has it's place, but he didn't seem interested in asking the right questions--i.e., "Why doesn't your book deal at all with the evidence we have gathered?"

So many better ways to have conducted that round table, but by and large, they did a decent job.

Kay is offering a joke theory of psychosocial analysis when it is he who should be on the couch. Imagine the table turned-- I envision a point in the near future when talk shows like The Agenda will be interviewing believers in the official story, people like Kay, to determine why they haven't yet accepted the fact that high level indictments are being served to American citizens for conspiracy to commit fraud, murder, and acts of international terrorism by participating in the 911 attacks, and yet they continue to believe it was all about 19 hijackers.

By far the more interesting psychosocial study for which Kay should be spending his time, is that of the effect of mass perception management (the shock doctrine).

What NIST perpetrated was consciously fraudulent "science", thus making it pathological.

Anyone who understands basic science understands this, which means Kay can't even claim to understand 7th grade science, he really should be writing articles about the poor education he received growing up.

Perhaps we could offer to raise money and send him to community college for some basic physics education.

Anytime we are dealing with people who are only interested in attacking the messenger, we are at a distinct disadvantage. It is a lose-lose proposition for us.

If we politely stick to the science and let them hack away with pseudo-psychology, then we come across as whimps.

If we attempt to engage in pseudo-psychology with them, then we are playing their game and not talking about the evidence.

If we point out that they clearly don't understand basic science, we come across as condescending bullies who have our own science and scientists (i.e. not credible).

I see this impossible-to-fulfill need for mainstream media approval as a kind of illness.

We know they lie and have an obvious agenda. We know our best path has always been to cut out the media middlemen and go directly to the public and yet we keep trying to cozy up to the msm like a sweetheart on a Friday night.

Why?

The msm are quite literally very expensive prostitutes and we don't have the cash.

Let them swim in the sewers with their corporate clients, most of the public don't trust them, anyway.

I just loved the phony polls that "show" the truth movement is shrinking when all evidence is to the exact contrary.

Keep educating the public, brothers and sisters, let's continue to hasten the day when clown's like Kay are employed at something well suited to their skill sets, like opening bathroom doors for millionaires.

I only wish that he had attempted to interview me, his ears would still be ringing.

The truth shall set us free, and the truth will burn some folks ears.

Love is the only way forward, and sometimes love means telling someone they are completely wrong about something, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms.

When it comes down to the "brass tacks", anyone who is actively against a proper, full, scientifically based, independent investigation of 9/11 (knowing just ONE proven fact that casts doubt on the official fairytale) is SIDING WITH THE 9/11THUGS, whoever they may be, by protecting them. The ONLY possible logical reasoning for (a) stonewalling against any form of investigation, as did the Bush White House for 441 days after 9/11, (b) setting up the resulting compromised inquiry (read farce) to fail and (c) actively preventing a real investigation, is to prevent the truth from emerging and justice from being served.

By some ironic twist, George W. Bush was right on when he said: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Jonathan Kay, is without a shadow of doubt, *with the terrorists*. So is the entire Obama Administration, the huge majority of the US Senate and Congress, and most of the US corporate mainstream media. In fact, anyone who knows that there are problems with the official story (and we all know there are some 100s of "problems"... many of them impossibilities, in this universe at least)... and actively pursues a course to prevent justice being served, is guilty of protecting the 9/11 terrorists.

Harsh words, and they are perhaps offensive to some people's comfort zones. However, the investigation and solving of the 9/11 attacks should not be mandated by niceties. Its time to start wielding a big stick and get this nasty episode behind us, by any means at our disposal. This nation can handle it, we are near 235 years old. If it means that a very large bunch of officials and others who are accessory after the fact to mass murder, doing long jail time, then so be it. I'll be the first to cheer. No more appeasement.

The interview certainly had some confusing uncomfortable moments. However, many of the above comments seem to point the finger not at Kay but on those who had looked at the evidence and were not fooled by the whitewash 9-11 investigation. The big lie trumps here at 911blogger, too, since some continue to cherry pick small details of disagreement, which add more confusion in our confronting the evidence of a cover-up. This feeds into the public condescension. So, in entering into a program like this, based on a psychological put-down book trying to justify why so many intelligent people question the official version of 9-11, I think we have to somehow turn the tables around.

I will paste in my reply written recently to someone from my past, who basically declared me as a paranoid schizophrenic based on my observations of the 3 WTC buildings were brought down by demolitions and not by airplanes. And I often reference this article by National Academy Science member, Dr. Lynn Margulis, Two Hit, Three Down, The Biggest Lie

This following is only one comment after a few comments responding to such ignorance and insults..

"..either Frank [not his real name] and many others are correct.. that i am a paranoid schizophrenic or I am correct and that there is a lot of mind controlling elements going on in our society. i don't want to be correct about what i am seeing.. but ...it is what I have seen as a web activist fighting to stop weapons from being based in outer space since the 1999 Cassini flyby. I put myself in a unique position after getting a computer from an R&D company I founded because I was not part of the technical team, and not much to publicize, so I got sidetracked or perhaps directed to help Professor, author, Karl Grossman and campaigns to stop the expansion of the arms race. It was after 9/11/01 when that campaign failed when the US Government were responding to the media driven war cry. I was forced to deal with 9/11 because of looking into and researching and speaking with witnesses, like William Rodriguez, who's testimony was never put into the 9/11 official report, nor was an entire building's collapse that never happened in history and since, and there are visual recordings that its fire COULD NOT collapse in its own footprint in under ten seconds. It doesn't work in the law of physics. So the issue, which is not personally directed at [Frank], and I believe, too, he has no personal axe to grind with me. . . Many people would not want to deal with the consequences of seeing the truth, it is easier to condescend to someone challenging the official version. Gandhi said, first they ignore you, then they belittle you, then they fight you, then you win.

But we are still left with the consequences unless there is a critical mass of the public awakened to the truth on this issue, so a new investigation to deal with each point questioning the investigation, and analyzing the properties of the nano-thermite found through-out the dust. But one crisis has unfolded after the other.. and the world has been increasingly destabilized, and following the path of the money, black operations are continued to be funded using drug trafficking.. and the division of the rich and poor has gone through the stratosphere.. the financial corruption controlling politics is beyond our control.. but I believe the truth regarding the events of September 11, 2001, could expose a series of crimes and disregard of the oath of the office of US President since JFK's assassination.

Either we continue this charade which is a cover-up of what really happened on September 11, or we will continue going in our current course which is threatening all life on Earth.. So, I appreciate your interest to discuss this issue.. my basic sense is.. without truth there is no justice,, and with no justice.. no peace.. this is basic but the depth of corruption following a game plan that goes back centuries, is regarding the rich and the poor.. and to achieve super wealth, controlling public opinion and action is paramount, besides controlling the banks and financial services/systems. so we are confronting corporate mass media with other industries trying to make reality disregard truth, science, morality, everything.. for their will and sense of insecurity. the sociopaths seem to be ruling our world on many levels.. I was led to deal with the truth of 9/11, and appreciate our chance to discuss it.. since I feel it is so important, and lessons from our old community could help us overcome a smokescreen for deceit. We either will respond with love or fear, in each of our choices. But sometimes unity to stand up to an intensifying injustice is all we need to do for our own integrity, and change the world from its present course if at all possible.. personally and globally.."

calling out BZ over his stance on flyover is not "cherry picking a small detail." It's akin to the difference between those who maintain that the shot that killed JFK came from the grassy knoll and those who say it came from the limo driver. There are serious credibility issues at play.

The best way to "turn the tables around," as you suggest, is to demand from those who take the public spotlight to refrain from flamboyant theorizing and instead, exercise intellectual discipline by sticking to the mainstream consensus within the movement -- positions that have either been tested by the scientific method or have universal support. There are more than enough issues that fall into that category to make an overwhelming argument for a new investigation.

Did i miss something. I did not hear Barrie Zwicker talk about the Pentagon on this show..

I did hear and agree with Paul Zarembka about the cover-up of evidence there that would answer such questions.

Friendly fences is a much better idea than lumping everything from a perceived political correctness...

I will paste in about this concept in a post written by Robin Hordon.

"All people and organizations within the 9.11 Truth Community, when differing opinions and conclusions of similar evidence emerge, should support the establishment of “Friendly Fences” between the various lines or approaches of research into the events on 9.11.2001 as well as between the individuals doing such research or offering input, information or opinions. This will allow and support the many avenues of research and consideration that remains ahead for the 9.11 Truth Community and will also eliminate the vast majority of infighting between the various lines of research and people conducting it, and most importantly, establishing such “Friendly Fences” will disable cointelpro operations which are currently creating much dissension within the 9.11 Truth Community itself.

The foundation of establishing the need to build “Friendly Fences” is that the US Government and its various agencies and departments have NOT provided to the public square, either enough, trustworthy or comprehensive evidence and information about the events surrounding 9.11.2001, and further that, no firm conclusions can be made about many subjects or events at this time. Additionally, because of the withholding of this evidence, it is concluded that the US Government and its various agencies and departments are in fact continuing to cover up their roles in the events of 9.11.2001.

And finally, by establishing “Friendly Fences” within the 9.11 Truth Community, this would allow individuals and various research teams to offer their points of view, evidence and any conclusions without fear of defamatory and uncivil reaction from within the 9.11 Truth Community itself.

In taking the position that the 9.11 Truth Community cannot yet make firm conclusions about what happened on 9.11.2001 primarily BECAUSE the US Government is withholding evidence, then the 9.11 Truth Community now both: aligns itself with, and gains credibility and commonality with the public in general. This relationship will exist because the majority of US citizens also do not trust that the US Government is telling them the truth about the various US Government’s roles in its historical nefarious activities including the events of 9.11.2001.

Allowing more fair and open research without the fear of retribution or personal attack, disabling COINTELPRO operations, and standing on the same side of the general public regarding the lack of truths and evidence being provided by the US Government are three, very important and worthy goals that will be met by establishing a concept of building “Friendly Fences” within the 9.11 truth Community.

Thank you for your time in considering this important step ahead in the 9.11 Truth Community."

Robin Hordon
Long time political activist
Originator of CI…Civil Informationing
9.11 Truth for World Peace and Justice activist
Puget Sound Peace Presence originator
Pilot and former PATCO air traffic controller and government whistleblower
Arrested at Seabrook Nuclear Powerplant

Don't you get it? This site is run by under cover super duper secret agents. Why do you post here and why are you a member of a site that is "working for the other side"? I do because I am a "disinformation specialist" real name Jimd3100Stein. Ask B Zipper- he'll tell ya. Or perhaps he's a fruitcake? Which is it?

UR missing the big picture. David Duke doesn't mention his disdain for Jews and Blacks every time he's interviewed, but that doesn't mean he's not a racist. BZ has gone out of his way to defend CIT and flyover and is often fanatical about disinfo and COINTELPRO. IMO that makes him a liability. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't contributed any notable original research and has only repackaged the research of others. He likes to talk (a lot) and he knows how to speak into a camera. That's about it.

I like Robin Hordon but I don't agree with his "Friendly Fence" approach. It's a sugar-coated version of "Big Tent" and by definition would have to include those who postulate everything from DEW to hologram theory.

It's my opinion that we don't need to research all of the different theories, especially theories where conclusive data is simply unavailable, but rather, we need to pump more resources into those areas that have been isolated by various professionals in the movement and which are in constant need of funding and exposure.

I have this type of discussion with my family sometimes.. People hold on to their perceptions of something said or done in the past by someone else.. and so focus on it to a degree that they cannot see anything else. You are missing what is really good about "Towers of Deception" and Barrie Zwicker. Instead you call him names based on one point of disagreement. That is not too mature, or responsible for the greater picture of who and what this media investigator is about. The concept of good fences is to grow in a maturity to realize that we may disagree on certain issues, but on the bigger picture we may agree on many points. Instead of making disagreements appear that the 9/11 truth movement is a bunch of infighting fruitcakes or righteous know-it-all, we can establish a point of key points to where we agree and can more effectively educate the onlooker to the greater issue of the need for a real investigation.. and then we can analyze more fully the details under scrutiny. At this point, attacking other truthers based on statements outside the topic of each thread only creates a messy ineffective situation for all of us. I hope the truth movement will grow up to see the wisdom of what Robin Hordon introduced as the "friendly fences" concept.

between common courtesy, maturity, civil discourse and blogging etiquette, and turning a blind eye to absurdity and irresponsible conjecture, which your statement, "supporting the research you think deserves support and ignoring that which you think doesn't" encourages. There is a real reason why MLK said,"There comes a time when silence is betrayal." Because ignoring a problem allows it to fester, and in a very real way being silent about a problem is tantamount to condoning it. When a doctor cuts you open to fix a clogged artery, he takes a knife to your skin, makes you bleed, causes a huge amount of pain...... and saves your life. Sifting thru the problems in this movement is gonna be painful, but it needs to be done if we are going to stay alive.

Jonathan Kay fits every category of behavior you've just mentioned, yet I don't see you defending him. Should we just "disagree without rancor and move on" with him and the people who live behind his fence? If not, why? Shayam Sunder is very polite and civil. Should we not call him out?

"Friendly Fences" sounds wonderful, but IMO it's like holding an umbrella in a hurricane.

And what does "sew division with divisiveness" mean? Do you mean to say sewing divisiveness by injecting artificial division? It seems to me that if anyone is failing to measure up to the "Friendly Fence" ideal, it's CIT and Barrie Zwicker due to his overt and unequivocal endorsement of their tactics, accusations and steadfast (absurd) disposition. Not to mention BZ's pronounced "disinfo" fear mongering.

(ed. note: I don't vote people down on this forum, I only vote them up. If I disagree with what they have to say, I hit the reply button, not the down button. Maybe there is a little bit of "friendly fence" in me after all)

or you are not understanding the distinction (but I think you do, from what I understand of your reply).

"Friendly Fences" does not mean we don't critique each other's work and or challenge factual errors.

This is the truth movement, accurate data and sound, logical reasoning have to be at the heart of everything we do.

All "Friendly Fences" means is that we do so in a civil manner and once we have sufficiently critiqued and or corrected the record (In a civil manner), we don't go out of our way to engage those we disagree with in a gratuitous, aggressive manner.

Creating artificial divisions where none should reasonably exist is at the heart of cointelpro (and/or human dysfunction), so yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Some folks, for whatever reasons, continue to pour oceans of energy into these artificial divisions.

There are also, unfortunately, those who just don't understand basic science and/or logic, as well. I think that some attempt should be made to educate them and, if this goes no where, they should be gently isolated so as to minimize the damage they do to themselves and the movement.

I was raised by two scientists, thus the scientific method and the attendant critical thinking that goes along with it were staples growing up.

I am an information junkie and life-long critical thinker, there is no way I would ever suggest we do anything less than hold ourselves and each other to the highest standards when it comes to facts, evidence and analysis.

All the above said, I am also a human being and get tired of all the needless and gratuitous bashing that goes on. It is extremely detrimental to us as individuals and is pure poison for the movement. It has driven and continues to drive many good people away from the movement, imo.

Perhaps a hypothetical example is in order: A small team of amateur researchers goes out of their way to investigate a certain aspect of 9/11. While doing so they uncover some potentially useful information, but their research is flawed in some ways and their data is not 100% reliable (to some other researchers/analysts). They, however, think they have uncovered some major issue that will blow the 9/11 cover-up apart for all the truth movement and general public to see, and make a huge push to promote their findings.

The possible responses to this are:

1) Quietly critique their work and encourage them to address any deficiencies before they move forward.
2) Boldly call out the problems with their work and slam them as loudly as possible.
3) Ignore them and hope they are ignored by the rational people of the world.

A "Friendly Fences" policy would encourage people to pursue the first response.

Assuming (1) is followed, then the onus on good behavior and proper investigative methodology would fall on the researchers to correct the flaws in their methodology and thus increase the potential usefulness of whatever data was gathered.

If, however, these researchers immediately become defensive and begin attacking those that provided legitimate and constructive criticism, then they should be shunned and isolated in a civil manner until they begin to behave responsibly.

If approach (2) is taken, then it is obvious that the rhetorical equivalent of a food fight will most likely result and all the responsible parties are equally at fault for said mess (this assumes that the researchers respond in kind and don't take the "Friendly Fences" higher road).

Following approach (3) allows more unchallenged junk out into the public knowledge space and only muddies the water further as we try to correct the "official" incorrect record (not terribly helpful for anyone except those wanting to maintain the cover-up).

In the end what this comes down to is individuals collectively agreeing to remain civil and maintaining this civility no matter what. No mud slinging period, no matter how incorrect the data or faulty the logic.

The bottom line here is very old school manners, if you don't have anything polite and/or positive to say, don't say anything.

This, if followed, would cut the legs out from 99.9% of possible attempts at cointelpro based on disinformation AND personality-based attacks, the combination of which are probably about 99% of all attempts at cointelpro.

Note that there is no attempt to determine or define what is actually cointelpro, as that is virtually impossible for all practical purposes.

What it does is segregate the civil from the uncivil, the factual from the non-factual and the valid analysis from the invalid, for everyone with a truly open mind to see.

"Friendly Fences" also provides a process by which people can heal themselves of either faulty reasoning or minor personality disorders, should they choose to.

Of course, this all starts and ends with individual choice. People can either choose to be civil or not, choose to be rational or not, choose to adhere to the scientific method or not.

Finally, we all choose to associate with the people, facts and analyses that we find most compelling, credible and plausible (or not, for those driven by non-rational factors), so our choices create the movement we see before us.

I think the vast majority of people would prefer a movement guided by the concept of "Friendly Fences" and I know it would be much easier to present said movement to the public as a cohesive whole rather than the increasingly factionalized and cacophonous rabble we are becoming.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. Thanks.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free, and everyone has their own individual path to the truth.

Love is the only way forward, and love means letting everyone find their own path to the truth (however long it may take them).

It seems to me that effective leadership defines an agenda and then pursues that agenda, not just set up a free for all situation where people are tacitly encouraged to say anything as long as "their heart is in the right place". I rather disagree with the friendly fences concept, because it presupposes that there are so many different viable research projects within the 911 truth movement that we ought to just live and let live, that things are just "fenced off". That's not how it should be, we should have one clear agenda that we can all agree on, it is the existence of the fences that hold back our progress, not the failure to "respect" the work of people in the various fenced off areas. That's not to say we can't and shouldn't be civil in making our criticisms, but I think the emphasis is wrong. The emphasis should be, get on board with a rational consensus, not "whatever gets you through the night is alright".

where we are all leaders and not everyone has the same facts or the same expertise to evaluate the facts they do have.

The question really is "how do irrational beings (humans) relate to the rational world?"

Ideally, we would all have the same education in science and logic, have the self-discipline to discuss the relative value of each fact, reach agreement on the facts, and then come to the same conclusions based on sound science and logical reasoning.

But, as we are human and thus inherently irrational, the situation is fraught with subjective interpretation and analysis (esp. confirmation bias), and another paradigm has to be created and refined.

Research, even scientific research, is often a "free for all" and that is generally not a problem until people personalize it, stop critiquing ideas and start attacking personalities.

Add to the mix a highly charged political subject which has literally fatal implications for many (and thus plenty of subterfuge) and you can easily get a real mess (such as what we now have).

You seem to be suggesting that one answer exists for every question and what we need to do is agree on that one answer. There are many problems with this approach, here are a few:

1) Incomplete data allows for multiple correct " hypothetical answers".
2) Contradictory data allows for for multiple and conflicting answers until we can verify which data is correct.
3) How does one determine, in an environment such as the one surrounding 9/11 data, which is the correct data and which is false, when many variables are beyond our control.
4) Who defines what the "rational consensus" is?

In some ways, this comes back to a basic understanding of epistemology. How do we know what we know?

If all human knowledge is subjective in the final analysis, who is to say what is objective and what isn't?

Is "truth" simply a popularity contest?

As for "agendas", I think that any honest member of the 9/11 truth community would say that the only "agenda" for the entire movement is to work for an impartial and complete investigation of the events of September 11, 2001. After that, there are many sub-agendas on which reasonable people can disagree.

Finally, I get the sense that you really don't understand how most research is conducted. A hypothesis is formed based on preliminary observations and/or facts. This hypothesis is then tested in a variety of ways and either validated or invalidated to greater or lesser degrees. A new hypothesis is then formed and tested. Ad infinitum until all reasonable and testable variables have been tested and, assuming the hypothesis holds up, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Thus, we can see that multiple avenues of research into any one area are possible (of course, some are more plausible than others, but this is a subjective determination made by the researcher).

Science is really very democratic and extremely messy when done properly. There's just no getting around that.

This is why mixing science with activism is so problematic. Good scientists are not afraid of being wrong and court controversy (within the subject matter).

Contrast that with the demands of effective activism where you want well-defined, accurate and reliable information, and as little controversy as possible, and you can see where problems will most likely arise.

Thus, we have to evolve a system where researchers can pursue their research as they see fit (and use each others research as each sees fit), find agreement where and when possible, and agree to disagree civilly when and where agreement can't be found; AND activists are wise enough to use that which is ready for public consumption (yet another subjective call).

Or, if I understand your approach correctly, we designate an individual or group to decide what is valid and what is not, obey their edicts and excommunicate all those who don't adhere to the orthodoxy.

[hey, if you can completely miss what I was trying to say and reframe it in some self-serving way to make your point, why can't I?]

My bottom line here....please feel free to tell me I have something wrong (or even everything wrong, but I highly doubt that), but do so in a civil manner without getting personal and without being gratuitous.

Yes, this does take patience and a form of grace, why not aspire to such things? Why not try to bring out the best in each other?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free, perhaps some of us aren't yet ready to be truly free.

Love is the only way forward, and love means being wise enough to know when you don't know what the truth is.

A few remarks. Human beings are not irrational, so I disagree with you that this is simply a fact we have to accept. Second, I don't know why you respond to a critic like this, if people disagree with you about movement strategy why don't you consider their objections? What makes you an authority? People have ideas about how to move the truth forward also, not just you. Some of us are upset by the current state of the movement. These people, including me, are hurt by being treated like the problem by people like you. We are not the problem, we are trying to help. It seems like you dislike the manner in which we are trying to help. We are trying to help by rejecting certain ideas that are not helpful, and that requires criticism of certain people. If you assisted with the criticisms you would be doing a good thing, not a mean thing. I'm sorry if I've offended you or anyone else, but we are trying to get a new investigation here so to all of you, toughen up and quit pushing the helpful voices away.

1) If human beings are not irrational, then why do they do irrational things? (An irrational being can choose a rational course of action, but a rational being is confined to the rational, yes?)

2) I don't think we are at a level where we can even begin to productively discuss strategy, seeing as how we can't even agree on a process for resolving conflicts amicably. (or have we and we are just talking past each other?)

FTR -

1) I am just one person, like any other, the only authority I have is what any one person gives me in any one moment (other than the authority I have over my own being, of course).

2) I welcome all ideas, especially constructive ones.

3) We are all the problem and the solution, that is a given (and I'm not framing anyone as a "problem", although it does appear that others are trying to).

4) I have no problem with anyone accepting or rejecting any idea. Everyone has a right to decide for themselves what their truth is or isn't. However, the public promulgation of false data and/or flawed analysis should never go unchallenged, especially about important, historic events that impact billions of people.

5) What I do have a problem with is mob behavior, smash-mouth politics and/or ad hominem attacks. The means create the end.

6) Once again (and with feeling), I have absolutely no problem with facts and analysis being critiqued, this should be a given for any truth movement.

You have not offended me in any way, however I think you should reflect on your last line a bit:

address my responses directly. I've carefully stayed focused on specific problems with the "FF" approach and used real-life examples as to why it's problematic. I've yet to hear a direct response to the specific points I've raised. I assume since you took the time to write a lengthy clarification, you feel my responses and examples are either inadequate, misguided or ill-motivated, But I don't know which because you won't go there. That doesn't do anyone any good.

This extended thread started when Jonathan Mark responded to my criticism of BZ by suggesting I adopt a "Friendly Fence" attitude. I said "no," the friendly fence attitude is flawed and doesn't address the problems with Zwicker (and a few other people and theoretical positions) -- problems which a lot of people have.

I've tried to to avoid ad homenim attacks. Did I use any?

And what is the difference, in your mind, between "friendly fence" and "big tent?" Please try to be as concise as possible..... like.........regarding flyover, a friendly fence approach would be ......... and a big tent approach would be........" or regarding BZ, a friendly fence approach would be ......... and a big tent approach would be........"

BTW, Vulich nailed it. If we all stayed focused on NORAD stand down, govt. foreknowledge, the ae911T position on CD, we'd be way better off than we are now.

Let me first try a few definitions and see if that sheds some light on this:

1) The "big tent" philosophy (which I've never been a fan of, btw) requires that we welcome everyone in and let them do whatever they want (lighting the canvas on fire, sawing tent poles in half; organizing everyone's shoes, even if we don't want them to, etc.). Campers are then forced to search everyone for matches and saws and constantly rebuild the tent, a losing proposition if there ever was one; or let the tent be destroyed.

2) The "this is my tent, agree with me on everything or get out, go away and die" philosophy is extremely intolerant, self-isolating and guarantees rancor, while preserving everyone's plot and tent (although many will replace the tent with a bunker, as they have already done). Campers learn very quickly to choose sides, keep their heads down and arm themselves to the teeth, lest they be tossed into the lake and/or be bombed back to the stone age.

3) The "choose and maintain your own tent" philosophy (i.e. "Friendly Fences") allows individuals to choose which tent they want to live in or encourages them to pitch their own tent. Campers then meet around the camp fire whenever they choose and discuss whatever they choose with whomever they choose. Some campers may stay in their own tents the whole time, other campers may try a few tents before pitching their own. Everyone in the campground agrees to not mess with the other campers' tents. This does not inhibit campers from pointing to holes in other tents or the fact that some tents have poles that don't appear to be doing anything at all or that the tent appears to be supported in places where no poles or ropes are visible. No camper is forced to talk to any other camper, or even has to listen to every camper in the campground.

Some folks may even choose to pitch their tents on the other side of a bridge, in a completely different campground, and venture over to the community campfire rarely, if at all.

The bottom line is that everyone agrees to not destroy other people's tents (some are really good at destroying their own tents and don't need any help with that anyway) AND that, if asked, they will offer constructive ideas on how said tent could be better.

Of course, if some campers consistently mess with other people's tents, then the other campers can isolate their campsite and no one will invite them to the campfire or share their marshmallows with them. But, in no case, will any responsible camper throw flaming marshmallows at the tent(s) of those they disagree with.

Thus, if I'm sitting around the campfire and someone says "I can prove that XXX hit YYY" I have several choices. I can ask them to show me the proof and listen attentively, critiquing the presentation once it's complete. I can politely express disagreement and leave it at that or I can politely remove myself and occupy myself with what I consider to be more productive uses of my time.

Implicit in giving a presentation is listening to, and responding to, whatever critiques may follow (or not, if one chooses to self-isolate as some clearly have).

The only real problem with this is the one we will always have...what do you do with irrational and disruptive campers who won't leave and don't care if they're ignored?

Ready to go camping? Let's pick someplace good for canoeing.

If you still need a concise answer to a specific question, then ask a specific question that is neutral in tone.

Thanks for continuing a discussion that is vital to the continued progress of our movement.

because "Friendly Fence" is basically "Big Tent" (aka "Big Campground") and neither can adequately address the cancerous effect on the movement caused by the issues I mentioned and the people who espouse, advance, or turn a blind eye to them.

I think it might be productive at this point for you to reflect on how you define "Big Tent" (so you can describe it thoroughly) and how you propose to deal with conflict within the truth community (and everything that flows from the conflict and possible solutions).

I will be starting a new blog for this discussion sometime today and we can continue the discussion there, we've already spent more time in this thread on this than is appropriate.

[EDIT: This far too important a subject for a hurried blog. I will post it as soon as it's done. Thanks for your patience.]

I am pasting in this comment from Craig McKee on a page I moderate with the 9/11 Truth Teleconference It shares on how we can unite on key points, and enable friendlier discussion on some of the details where some may disagree.

"I have no problem with the suggestion that more research could be done and that more witnesses could be found and interviewed. And you certainly have the right to cite witnesses that you feel contradict CIT’s research. But there are serious problems with some of your other suggestions.

The first and most obvious is your suggestion that CIT prohibit its supporters from expressing certain opinions. Are you seriously suggesting that CIT has control over those who support their research?
When people use terms like “stupid” in connection with the Pentagon event, they seem to usually be doing so to attack CIT. I don’t think stupid is a very strong word to use in debating an issue.

Whether or not there is any evidence of a 757 is really not the point. I contend, as do many others who support CIT’s work, that the airplane parts found at the site were not from Flight 77 or any other 757 that crashed into the building that day.
As for the hole, it clear wasn’t large enough for a 757 to disappear into the building. And no, I don’t buy the Mike Walter fantasy of folding wings.

The last point I’ll address is the ‘demonizing of co-operating witnesses’ reference, because this is clearly one of your favourite arguments. It’s also very popular with the anti-CIT crowd at 911Blogger, which is losing credibility with an ever-growing number of 9/11 Truthers.

Lloyde England is not a demon and he’s not an evil mastermind behind a conspiracy, but he has given an account of what happened to him on that morning that defies common sense. I’m sorry if you feel this is unfair to him, or that it demonizes him, but I simply don’t believe his account. Aren’t you disbelieving all the witnesses who support the north-of-Citgo flight path? Their accounts clearly don’t jive with the light poles being hit. Why is this different?

You, and others who agree with you, seem to want to support the official story of the Pentagon on 9/11, and I still don’t understand why."

I suggest this comment is removed entirely. It's much worse than OT: it's a thread hijack with the deliberate attempt to plug another blog. A blog known to peddle lies. Jonathan wouldn't post this on his blog because he knows it would risk not getting published. McKee, iirc, is either banned or in moderation and has had several of his blog posts removed, because they were blindly hurling accusations against innocent citizens of complicity in mass murder. I've been the subject of attack on his blog, (with one quote wrongly attributed to me which was actually Jimd3100's) but I don't mind that because I like and prefer to be the target of attack of blogs like that.)

The timing couldn't be better. There are some great minds who monitor and participate in this forum. "Anxious" doesn't begin to describe the anticipation of listening to what they have to say. I'll start it if UR too busy.

This campground is unusual in that it it needs to attract more people if it is to achieve its purpose. Your points above seem solely focused on the intra-movement aspect, as opposed to how the movement relates to the larger society. That consideration seems to be the crux of so many of the disputes that take place within the movement: Is 'x' going to make it harder for the movement to make inroads with the larger society? Of course, we are all supposed to be about seeking the truth regardless of how we are received. But when some are not merely not persuaded of 'x,' but consider 'x' to be making it harder for the movement to fulfill its purpose, then how would you apply the 'friendly fences' approach such as you've outlined above? What would be the way for people in that case to respond to the what they see as a critical problem, without it being characterized as throwing flaming marshmallows?

"Here's THE 911 truth.There were no Communists left and unless the people believe there's a BIG enemy that poses a BIG threat they wont pay for a BIG military! And they wont fight for oil.Oil wars MUST be based on lies so that when their boys come home in a box people can he died for some noble cause. If they can't say that,they wont support the wars ! That's it. That's the WHY of 911. Others can debate the HOW,but that's the WHY." [Quote]

We'd do more for 911 truth by talking like that than by talking about what might have happened to the buildings themselves. Is there a reason why we don't?

I guess, too, the issue is not about why. Most people accept the corruption of the government, and know they are being lied to, but feel powerless. That is why our unity is key no matter how you say it, or on what detail one might focus on. The greater picture is on exposing the cover-up and distortion of truth. In the above program no one made any real bad mistakes, but those refusing to look at the evidence so obvious to honest people who are critical thinkers. The bigger picture must not get blurred by those discussing details.. so your point is well received, and helpful.

The spokespeople recorded at Thursday's live radio broadcast. is most recommended for eloquent and plain talk about 9/11. At the following link, if you want to listen to it, turn off the live streaming radio at the right, and use Player under Creating a New Path to Peace & Prosperity.

and any thoughtful person should be thinking along those lines if they are paying attention.

I personally make the link whenever the opportunity presents itself, and bring up the need to go to alternative energies in a massive way when discussing the events of 911 privately and on forums like this one.

As a society we do have to be realistic and understand that we can't just go without energy. However, it doesn't have to be paid for by the blood of many and the profits going to the few. Although it won't be easy going to an alternative system it is the moral way to go.

The public seems to be slowly getting the need to go to alternative energies, although I am not sure it is because many of them understand the connection of the present energy supply set up to what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus there is a need to show that the collapses were a hoax to further the ends brought up in the paragraph you quote.

The additional sad part of it all is that had the 3 trillion dollars spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 been spent instead on alternative energies we would probably be nearly if not completely energy independent by now.

when they present you with something that may endanger what you perceive as your power is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Condescension and a claim of affection often accompanies it and usually means that the attacker knows what he's doing.

There are some who claim the truth is very labyrinthine and very difficult to get at - so you need to crowd as many people in to a space (in a big tent, spilling over invisible fences) and hope that some 'truth' emerges from the ensuing, sometimes deafening, babble.

In my experience truth is a quiet, rational process of chipping away at the best evidence and putting the weakest on a back burner, lest it sits centre stage and distracts. Always keeping an open mind, of course, but keeping one's eye on the ball.